Tomorrow I’m supposed to go and vote. And I will vote, but my approach to this vote will be very pragmatic and I’m afraid that every classic argument that has been thrown at me, as an ordinary voter, in the attempt to convince me that these elections are important and that my vote counts left me absolutely cold.
Local politicians, European political leaders, candidates, bloggers, a part of the media, celebrities from all sorts of fields… they all tried hard in the past weeks to convince me that I, the ordinary European citizen with the right to vote, HAVE TO VOTE in these elections. A series of arguments have been brought and I have to say that I find all of them to be absolutely unconvincing, boring and some of them outright lies. All these arguments are so easy to combat and even easier to ignore, that I am not surprised about the very high number of people who decide that it is not worth voting in these elections. In this post I’m going to present the counterarguments and in the end, as a person who will vote tomorrow, try to see if there are some solutions to get rid of these unproductive slogans and with what they can be replaced.
Here are the 10 arguments offered by the European Parliament itself in order to convince people to vote and the corresponding counterargument.
By voting in EP elections, you choose who influences your future and the daily life of close to 500 million fellow Europeans. If you don’t bother, somebody else will - and decide who represents you at the only directly elected Pan-European assembly. Elected MEPs shape the future of Europe for 5 upcoming years. Get the Europe you want! If you don’t vote, don’t complain.”
I say: No, my vote influences in a very little proportion how the future of Europe will be shaped over the 5 years. Not because I hold just one vote among millions, but because I vote for one MEP or for a few among hundreds and because the future of the EU is decided mainly in closed circles, behind closed doors. Did the EP or any MEP have a say in the very concrete negotiations taking place for the European treaties? NO! Who I vote for will not represent me. The classic argument that an MP or an MEP represents the voice of those of those who elected him is outdated for decades. MEP’s will represent the voices of the groups they are in and of the parties they represent at home. They don’t hold imperative mandates, none of them will ask ME, the voter, how he or she should vote in the EP.
AND STOP TELLING ME I DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN IF I DON’T VOTE! I PAY TAXES EVERY YEAR AND I RESPECT THE LAW IN EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE! THAT GIVES ME THE RIGHT TO HAVE A SAY ABOUT HOW I AM GOVERNED!
2. They say: “MEPs – Your voice in Europe
Your MEP is your voice in Europe - why would you let it go to waste? Elected every five years, the European Parliament is a major and powerful player in European Union decision-making. Its votes shape final EU legislation that influences our everyday life, be it the food on our plates, the cost of our shopping, the quality of the air we breathe, or the safety of our children’s toys.”
I say: That’s crap and it partly repeats the previous argument! No one, absolutely no one, can speak in my place. No one asked me when the standard shape of the European tomato was decided. Let’s make it clear: the EP and the EU tell me how to leave, I don’t tell anyone how to vote over anything. I can admit my own personal voice matters once every 5 years, that’s one day in over 1820, not every day.
3. They say: “It’s your right to vote!
As a European citizen, voting in EP elections is your fundamental right and the means to have a say in how the EU works. By voting, you participate in determining who will represent real people like you, your family and friends, your neighbours and workmates in Europe. And as an EU citizen you can vote (or stand for election!) in whatever EU country you live, even if you are not a citizen of that country. And, what’s more, it won’t cost you a penny!”
I say: Voting in the EP elections may be my right, but not voting in European elections is another equally fundamental right. Voting is not mandatory for these elections, therefore I do not break any law by not voting. What is not forbidden is allowed and I have the right to act so. Besides, rights, such as the one to vote, ARE SOMETHING I CAN OPT FOR, NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ENFORCED UPON ME.
4. They say: “It’s for people and prosperity!
Young or old, student or retired, man or woman, employed or independent, mainstream or alternative, town or countrydweller, Europe concerns all of us, often without us realising! Thanks to Europe, we can easily travel, study and work abroad. The EP works tirelessly for a cleaner environment, safer chemicals, better services and jobs. It is an ardent defender of consumer rights, equal opportunities and human rights both in the EU and abroad.”
I say: It seems like you already decided what the EP is going to act for. Then why does it matter who is part of it? How can this be an argument in convincing me that my vote counts and that how I vote will shape the future, when it seems the future is already bright and is in the making even before I’m supposed to vote?
5. They say: “One poll - 375 million voters
In June 2009, You will have a unique opportunity to go to polls along with 375 million fellow European voters. What for? To elect both the world’s only directly elected transnational and multilingual parliament, and the EU’s only directly elected institution. Elected by the people since 1979, European Parliament represents today almost half a billion citizens.”
I say: Cool, but quantity is not a measure of quality. An elected body representing over half a billion citizens is not per se a good body and one vote in 375 million is not going to change that. I would rather hold 1 vote out 1000 let’s say and elect a body of 30 people who are accountable as an institution who makes decisions and not just as individuals.
6. They say: “Heavyweight MEPs
In most cases, MEPs have as much weight as the Member States in EU decision-making. Most laws that concern our daily lives are legislated side by side by MEPs and ministers at EU level. Many, probably most, laws enacted in your country are a transposition of European acts voted by MEPs - your representatives. And it’s not just laws: money for new roads, cleaner beaches, research, education, development aid? MEPs also decide where our EU money goes.”
I say: Hahahaha! The way the law looks in my country has anything to do with the EP? And I’m supposed to like and care for the EP?! I don’t know about you guys from other member states, but I invite you to come and live in Romania for a year (not as a tourist, but as a citizen with all legal rights and responsibilities) and then let me know how much you like the Romanian law, those who transposed it and those who anything to do with it in Brussels!
7. They say: “In the pipeline, even weightier MEPs
With the new Lisbon Treaty, once it can be implemented, MEPs’ decision-making powers over EU affairs will once more increase. It will place the Parliament on an equal footing as lawmaker with Member States’ ministers in virtually all areas of EU policy. The Parliament will also elect the President of the European Commission, strengthening its control over the EU executive. Furthermore, you as an EU citizen will have a right to initiate European laws.”
I say: Well, I’m sorry to be the one who brings the bad news, but the Lisbon Treaty simply does not exist. It is just some ink on a piece of paper at this point. That “once it can be implemented” is very discouraging. You might as well say: “A law has been adopted and once it can be implemented (in the future that is), everyone who votes in these 2009 elections (meaning now) will be given a car running only on water. It does not pollute, it can even fly and it will be yours for free. Once the law can be implemented…” You do something about implementing that treaty and then we’ll talk about it.
8. They say: “Your vote for diversity
Europe elects its new members in June 2009. Coming from 27 countries, these MEPs represent a wide range of national political parties, constituencies and views. In Parliament, most Members then organise themselves in political groups according to their political affinities. So Parliament, like Europe, is about diversity, prizing it and accommodating it - it even speaks 23 languages.”
I say: How cool. So you agree they represent national political parties, views etc. I would say the EP is as diverse as any other national parliament. There are a number of political parties/groups who follow their interests. What does that have to do with diversity?
9. They say: “It’s politics! It’s democracy!
Love the EU? Hate it? Want it to turn to the right? Or the left? Is there some issue you care passionately about? Are there changes you want to see? Action that can’t wait? Investments that should be made? Elect MEPs who see it your way and you could make it happen. That’s what democracy is all about. Make the difference.”
I say: No politician offered to me for voting in these elections can make a difference. No politician sees it my way and I don’t trust any politician who now says he/she sees it my way and than act completely different or not act at all. I have been disappointed too many times and I’m tired of having my vote deceived by a bunch of people who are in no way better than me.
10. They say: “It’s a small effort for a big outcome
Come on! It’s just a few minutes, maybe you can combine it with a walk in the park or a drink in a café. Not much effort to tell Europe what you want. After that it’s easy to follow what your elected members are doing for you - just visit www.europarl.europa.eu!”
I say: My vote is anonymous, Europe will never know what I want. And stop talking to me like I’m stupid and I would not want to vote based on the premise that it would be a great effort. It’s simply my choice, deal with that! And what can I do if I visit www.europarl.europa.eu and see that those I voted for do nothing for me? Is there anything I can do to change that? NO! I’m supposed to bear with that for 5 years. Yeah, right!
To this, I would add some counterarguments to a few things that have been said here in Romania in the past days. President Traian Basescu asked people to vote, saying that “Europe has done so much for us. Voting will show Europe that Romanians care about it. IT IS NOT THE POLITICIANS’ RESPONSABILITY, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! The turnout will influence how Romania is seen in Europe in the next years”. Another similar argument has been made by the Romanian prime-minister. “I am confident Romanians will vote and show just like other Europeans will. Let’s not fill ourselves with shame tomorrow!”, he said.
Really now? Again it’s my responsibility, the citizen’s! So it matters if for Romania’s image in Europe if I vote or not, but those I voted for can do whatever they want after that? No shit, man! And let me tell you something else. Throughout history, tons of Romanian blood have been spilled for Europe’s freedom and Romania’s contribution to European culture is enormous, to an extent that very few people know and that is never advertised. So I would say we’re pretty even. And enough with the argument that turnout decides Romania’s position. The treaties we signed and our rights as EU members decide that! Slovakia had a 17% turnout in 2004. Did they have a single problem because of that? NO. The Czechs now hold the presidency of the EU and their president is the most outspoken euroskeptic ever. Was that ever a problem for them? Don’t think so!
Throughout this campaign, I presented some aspects of the very poor electoral campaign taking place in Romania. The last week has been an even bigger disaster. The prime-minister, the president of the DLP, summed up his message saying: “Vote for the DLP candidates, they are the only ones who cab bring European money in Romania!”.
The Liberal party, which has the best list, with 4 women as top candidates, out of which 3 are very successful MEP’s, could have played the experience card very well and it could have also advertise their very successful women and gain many votes from the feminine electorate. Instead, in the last week they came out with an electoral clip in which the only person appearing is the president of the party, the guy who will represent them in the presidential elections this fall. He’s shaking hands with peasant, talking with people, going to church etc… As dull as it can get. The message displayed is: “Vote for those who can get the country out of the crisis!” and also reminds us the electoral promises of the governing parties which have been retracted by them after the last general elections. As if we are now supposed to vote for the next Romanian government.
Another DLP candidate, the 3rd on their list, in an electoral meeting in Bucharest, speaking to a crowd of young activists, said something like that: “Do you wnat techno music? We have Electro-Blaga! And don’t worry, in the fall we will give you DJ Basescu!”. “Electro-Blaga” reffers to Vasile Blaga, who is a minister in the Romanian government and is not running in the elections. “DJ Basescu” is obviously Traian Basescu, who will stand on behalf of the DLP in the presidential elections this fall. Asked by a TV reporter to explain what the candidate meant by this, another DLP candidate said only this: “He was talking to young people… What would you have wanted him to say?”. So much for the message for the young open minded generation…
The problem is that the arguments brought in favor of voting are very idealistic, while voting itself is very practical. We here these beautiful stories about democracy, how citizens have their say, how they can complain only if they vote, how they shape the future through voting etc etc… But elections are not a referendum. When the voter goes in the voting booth, he/she is supposed to vote for one candidate, for a list of candidates or for a party. A voter is told to vote because his vote shapes the future of the EU, but in the booth he has to vote for Vadim or Becali or the guy who speaks about Electro-Blaga and DJ Basescu. They don’t vote for issues, they vote for people, who can than do whatever they want after elected. Let’s face it, democracy offers not tool for citizens to control those elected. Arguing that one can no longer vote for the same person or party in the next elections does not stand, because the decisions made in the 4 or 5 years between the elections are already taken and they have effects.
In the light of such a very poor campaign, with such a poor (or poorly advertised) offer, why would anyone vote?
It is not us, the voters, who should come with solutions to that. It is politicians and decision-makers. Only treating elections seriously will convince people to vote and that the EP or the EU are important.
It is the responsibility of the leaders of European parties to check who their national member parties put forward for these elections. They are obliged to get involved. It is ultimately their image that is being contested in these elections. If their representatives in member states are unable or unwilling to explain the electorate what these elections are about and what the EP or the EU is about, they have to travel and do that themselves. People are tired of the same old local boring politicians. They want to see that there is something real out there. They want to see that the EP is actually more the Electro-Blaga and DJ Basescu and that the EU is more than just the cow who needs to be milked for money.
It is the duty of EU leaders to spread the European message and only then the people’s. Building Europe with local politicians is a futile effort. We need a real European political class. Otherwise, there will never be a real political Europe and in 50 years from now will probably have the exact same problems before the elections. If there will be any elections then, cause the turnout can drop that much that elections might be considered as useless…
Ok, I have about 15 more hours until I will go and vote. I will be one of the 20% Romanians who will vote in these elections. And guess what? Considering the candidates in Romania and the campaign, I think 20% is a very very good percentage.
Th!nk about what I’ve said above and don’t judge those who will not vote. We have to accept their arguments and work to change that. Luckily, I and many of you hold some information which allows us to vote with a fair dose of confidence that we will vote for people who can actually do something good in the EP. But based on the campaign that the party I will vote for has led, I consider I’m doing them a big favour. THEM, NOT MYSELF!
I hope to see as many of you on Th!nk About It after the elections. Have fun in Rotterdam!
(10 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Again 5 stars from me. I enjoy your posts, very well analyzed! And I thought I will meet you in Rotterdam???
And yes, yes, yes, the same feeling, why should I even bother when the campaigning is a) poor, b) with all the same faces for all 20 years of so-called democracy and c) the candidates don’t even try to convince me about the EU aspects
I will also vote, don’t even want to discuss why, but with very bitter taste.
Hello George.
I think people should be rather compelled to vote instead of being legally enforced. Unfortunately, there is not yet an educational model for European countries where all secondary schools should teach at least some 20-30 hours solely about the function and purpose of ‘EU citizenship’. What do you think about such an initiative? Don’t get me wrong - we don’t want to ‘brainwash’ our teenagers into nodding fools to think that the EU is totally innocent and purely good. But at least they should be encouraged and instructed to make colloquial readings of EU documents and actual news - helping them to understand the complexity of multi-source analysis. I’m a historian myself and I believe both in classes of history and economy there should be more emphasis on EU civil rights and updated information on decisions that affect our daily lives without us really taking much conscience.
Also, I don’t really mind the fact that voting is compulsory in Belgium - as I’m already convinced. In fact this ‘obligation’ needs to be nuanced: in Belgium there is a legal obligation to COME TO the ballot office and give proof (by a stamp put on the appeal card) you’ve been there. If they hand you a plastic voting card, it is not illegal to give it right back stating you want your vote to remain blank or void. There is no actual obligation to get into the ballot booth and cast a vote.
So, I’m glad to confirm your hypothesis that it is also our RIGHT to not cast a vote etc. What I do dispise, is people intent on sabotaging (disruption of good order, destruction of property or harrasment of security and tellers), in case they claim the tellers have been bribed or a computer failure or malfunction is ignored when one of the lists is defunct or something. Luckily there has never been a major incident, despite some lone stories of an outspoken nationalist teller who had tried to manipulate an old lady (who didn’t know how to vote on a computer) by advising her to vote a particular party list. But these things are really really rare, compared to voting monitoring required in some parts of Eastern Europe, Africa etc.
Legally speaking, the tellers in Belgium cannot even check your (ALWAYS FOLDED) card or form to see if you voted or not. That would be in violation of the absolute voting secrecy maxim. If your form isn’t folded, they’ll do it instead without ‘being nosy’ about your preference.
Imagine: ‘Sir, you voted blank/void, here’s a new card/form. If you are having trouble with the voting procedure, we’ll assist you and help to vote properly.’ That would be absurd indeed.
The turnout has traditionally been very high in Belgium (over 90 percent). The same goes for Greece. But from a numerical point of view, the imposed voting system in Luxemburg and Cyprus is absurd, as there’s only 6 EU seats for them each. Marginal win can only be as high as 2 seats more, a landslide victory for 1 single party in their case is quite utopic. Of course, what Cyprus representatives do in the EP is important for the Mediterranean zone in certain dossiers, but I’m not sure whether Cypriots are that outspokenly convinced of that. I’ll ask that next time I visit the island:)
Keep posting and analyzing!
Tanja, thanks
I have a feeling that people from almost all new member states from Central and Eastern Europe are very frustrated with how politics are going.
Unfortunately I cannot come to Rotterdam, I have to be somewhere else those days.
Nico,
You pointed out very correctly that education can be a long term solution for narrowing the gap between the EU and citizens. But I think very few states would think of that in the near future.
I actually believe that compulsory voting may become a tool for the involvement of people, but I think it can work only in more advanced democracies, not like the Romanian one, in which vote rigging is still very much a danger. This actually brings me to a point I did not mention in the post. Many say that a big turnout will prevent vote rigging. They fear electoral fraud to some extent and claim that the more people vote, the lower the impact of fraud. As if my vote is supposed to prevent fraud and not the police and those who supervise the elections!
The Belgian mechanism you described sounds to me.. how shall I put it… very normal. But I can’t even imagine how that would be implemented in Romania.
I would say turnout is not that important. I prefer 20% if those 20% are the ones who cast a relevant, informed vote, than 70% in which 50% have no idea what these elections are about.
[...] Th!nk About It am scris un post lung în care numeroasele argumente pe care le au cei care nu votează şi pentru care ei nu trebuie [...]
Reply to George Iulian JIGLAU latest post:
Democracy is not based on informed or not informed citizens. It is based on collective participation, regardless the educational background or the economic or marital status.
The term “Democracy” is used to describe the power of the public (demos). No “demos” means no democracy. Low turnout indicates problematic democracy – wherever this political phenomenon is present, there is something wrong and local politicians, trend setters, media personas, academics etc should boost participation whatsoever. The way to achieve that? Reaching out to EU citizens (dissemination of info).
New democracies in Eastern Europe obviously face a severe problem: how representative is democracy there? Democratic institutions are not yet mature: corruption and post-traumatic post-communist indifference prevails. Western European Democracies suffer from time fatigue, different kind of corruption and different kind of lack of involvement.
There is NOT a single serious reason not to vote. In your post you just playing the devil advocate for the sake of being one. By not voting we let other people decide on our behalf, like the xenophobic UKIP party in UK (which came second) or the ultra right wind party in the Netherlands (which also came second). I am sure you have heard about the results in these two countries already. Is this what we want in EU? The emergence of fascists and xenophobic lunatics? Ok then, DON’T VOTE, LET THE DARK FORCES OF EUROPE PREVAIL. This kind of abstention will only lead us to the political and cultural death of United Europe.
Let them shuffle the cards. However, shuffling is often followed by a “cut”, to ensure that the shuffler has not manipulated the outcome. Democracy reassures that the shuffler has done his job according the rules.
Ps1: Well done Cyprus: beach and sun has beaten the future of your children! Really mature decision to partially abstain.
Ps2: Non velat umbra diem = Darkness will not cover the sun.
Ps3: To paraphrase Aristotle: democracy (and electing representatives) is the best polity we could have among a bunch of other problematic ways of governing (aristocracy, dictatorships, totalitarian regimes etc). Even if democracy is in a way problematic, still it is the only solution the mankind has.
Stergios,
Your counterargument lacks solidity because it is based on the same idealistic kind of lines which stopped convincing skeptics many years ago.
Insisting on the etymologic meaning of the word democracy is the first mistake made when trying to present what democracy is about. In my view, a good democracy in the real world we live in today is MAINLY rule of law, respect towards fundamental rights and freedoms and access to free participation to public life. Voting once in 4-5 years is the most primitive form of political participation and hence, the least important. Constant daily participation through grass-roots movements or civic and political associations of citizens with continuous activites are much more important and bear a much more impact on the democratic life of a state than a vote governed and manipulated by politicians.
Unfortunately very few people have access to more information than the one spread by politicians, because they still remain the main actors who spread/are supposed to spread information (and the media usually present what they say with a minimum filter). This is why I said in the end of my post that the spreaders of the message need to be changed with credible new ones.
There is AT LEAST ONE VERY SERIOS NOT TO VOTE, when those who should be voted for do no treat elections seriously.
I agree the rise of extremism is dangerous, but it is not the fault of those who do not vote, but of the “non-extremist” politicians who do a miserable job at living up to challenges of extremism and constantly fail to prove that they are better than the “dark forces”. It is precisely why we have to find real solutions before it’s too late.
I think it is far more better for someone who does believe in the importance of voting to play the devil’s advocate than the devil himself.
The problem is that the reasons brought by people in favor of voting contain a great amount of normative considerations, while the empiric reality is very very different. Real life problems need real life solutions, not idealistic lines. The gap between the kind of discourse you use in your reply to my post and the problems I put on the table is extremely big, as big as the gap between the EU and its citizens. The EU generally uses the same amount of lack of pragmatism in the attempt to convince citizens that they should care about it and this is precisely why it will never work.
But I do enjoy the debate very much.
“I prefer 20% if those 20% are the ones who cast a relevant, informed vote, than 70% in which 50% have no idea what these elections are about.”
Couldn’t agree more. On election night (4th of june) here in Holland I did an livecolumn on our radioshow with a similar message - that most people would have better stayed at home, including, perhaps, myself. In addition, I think Thomas Paine’s “what we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly” is very relevant to the right to vote as well.
agree with frustration part: between 26 and 28% people voted today and I think it was similar in Romania! and among those who voted the result only reflects the relations on the national ground. And honestly, I think we are all just fed up with the same faces: national, european…: they are all the same. I also think that it’s true what you said in one of the replies about grass root, civic participation. From my national angle: civic initiative died in 90s and it was very alive in 80s (so still under socialism), today we don’t even have 1 decent think tank…I think that it’s not enough to say now you have a democracy, you have to also know what to do with democracy otherwise is just a nice concept which replaced the previous one…
Reply to George Iulian JIGLAU latest post: (Arguments in defense of the many who will not vote in these elections)
Dear George,
Your counterarguments give me the impression that cynicism has beaten any optimistic approach to the political system as we know it. And I am fine with “pragmatism” or “realism”, but I think this kind of “cynicism” is dangerously misleading.
Regarding the etymology not being a good starting point in understanding the world, Plato would respond to you, not me: “the keystone of knowledge is the understanding of terminology” (Plato Republic 465C). George, we have to be SURE that when we use the term “democracy” we have the same kind of understanding of the term. I am not sure there is a consensus here between you and me and therefore any kind of discussion is useless, since we are not based on common conceptual ground.
Your definition of the word “democracy” is scarily limited “good democracy in the real world we live in today is MAINLY rule of law, respect towards fundamental rights and freedoms and access to free participation to public life”…It will be a mere commonplace from my side to say that Democracy is immeasurably MORE than that.
The fact that few politicians in each member states do not meet the criteria of a decent, reliable and accountable politician, that doesn’t devaluate the meaning of democracy itself. Political actors and their followers lose their reputation, NOT the political system itself. It is a sign of mature political though to be able to make this two-fold distinction: political entities (polities) versus political actors. To use another example: do the priests who admitted that they have rapped and sexually abused pilgrims in Ireland or elsewhere represent the Catholic Church in its entity?
“All generalizations are dangerous, including this one” (Alexandre Dumas)
Such a nihilistic approaches to reality will only bring us to political “dark ages” of the past: raise of fascism and the emergence of marginal/fringe political “parties” across Europe. Just read yesterday’s reports on the Euroelections.
Where exactly is this apathy leading us to: We have created a parliament where passing legislation will be even more difficult. With all these self-contradictory anti-EU parties CONSENSUS will be even more difficult to achieve.
Just watch here what one more lunatic (the BNP’s first European Member of Parliament) just said after he had been elected in Yorkshire, UK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM_syuM22FE
Let me keep on having an idealistic approach towards life, as this is only way to change things. With nothing more than a pure pessimism, as you post is implying, there is no hope. And that’s why European Union has been created: to revitalise humanity’s hope for a better future. To put it into Oscar Wilde’s words: “A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing”!!!
Stergios
Ok. I’m still waiting for your solutions to this mess. Let’s say you’re right, it’s the fault of those who did not vote, who don’t care, it’s their fault extremists are slowly taking over Europen and destroying in from inside. What is your approach to this, except continuously blaming those irresponsible non-voters?
Sorry, George but I will use etymology again to illustrate that abstention is the greatest enemy of democracy…any kind of democracy…
And sorry, Josef, my example again comes from the ancient Athenian democracy (which was not perfect of course (women and slaves were not part of it etc.), but it was the first step forward for the mankind).
The word/adjective which was given to the Athenian citizens who didn’t vote (abstention was a political phenomenon even then) was the word “idiotis” which means the citizen who “idoteuei”, who prefers to live a private, lonely, non participative life. This was also condemned even then.
As you might have understood the same word is used nowadays in English (“idiot”) to describe the fool, stupid, awkward…you name it.
Any kind of ABSENCE within the political life – in other words – is considerated as pure STUPIDITY. I think this linguistic – historical example symbolically explains everything.
About me giving solutions and consultations: not really my type. This is not my role. The path to avoid being described/characterised as “idiots” is a lonely path, each of us has to follow it alone. Enlightenment might wait for us in the end of the tunnel, but I don’t bet on that for all of us.
RE: “But voting is such a primitive and formal manifestation of democracy that it’s crying out to be complemented.” Again this is VERY provocative phrase. Based on the fact that we are not part of a “direct democracy” (as the ancient Athenian used to be), we have to be able to fight with what we are given. I am sure if there was a better way, it would have been already invented.
the debate goes on under Stergios’ latest post:
http://elections.thinkaboutit.eu/2009/06/europe-just-had-a-relaxed-weekend-at-berlusconis-villapolitically-naked-and-exposed/
© NFLJERSEYCLOTHES.COM is a shirt monopoly. We are specialized in retailed and wholesale all kinds of nfl jerseys for many years,all the jersey are free shipping,custom chearance,with 3-7days delivery.Huge selection of Cheap NFL Jerseys, Authentic NFL Jerseys,NFL Apparel, NFL Jerseys Wholesale,NFL clothing, Soccer jerseys and so on Sports Jerseys.Yours satisfaction,Our pursuit.We would like to set up business relationship with you .